Slashdot Mirror
80% Improvement In Solar Cell Efficiency
An anonymous reader writes "Chemistry researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory say they've improved the efficiency of typical solar cells by a whopping 80% by creating a 3-D nanocone-based solar cell platform. The technology tackles the problem of poor transport of charges generated by solar photons. These charges — 'negative electrons and positive holes' — typically become trapped by defects in bulk materials and degrade performance. 'We designed the three-dimensional structure to provide an intrinsic electric field distribution that promotes efficient charge transport and high efficiency in converting energy from sunlight into electricity.' Bottom line, they say, is they've boosted the light-to-power conversion efficiency of photovoltaics by 80 percent."
With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency of conventional planar structure of the same materials.
So the efficiencies went from awful to slightly less awful.
Of course you didn't actually read the article, you just wanted to post first. No matter what the X is in "80% of X", this still means that you'll be able to get 80% more power from a solar panel.
With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency of conventional planar structure of the same materials.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
To be pedantic, they have boosted the efficiency of LOUSY solar cells.
They've taken a 1.8% efficient solar cell and turned it into a 3.2% cell.
I wish the world's press offices would declare a moratorium on announcing breakthroughs in solar technology.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
From the fine article: "With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency..."
So, with a ridiculously bad solar cell, they could increase the efficiency to something that's still ridiculously bad.
The key to solar cells is watts/dollar.
Thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Wonderful! Amazing! ...Just like the other half-dozen or so solar cell improvements I've read about over the past few years.
But unless we can actually BUY these upgraded units soon, I'd like to add one more appropriate adjective: Pointless.
(Okay, maybe not entirely pointless. But that's what it feels like when all of these more-efficient panels never seem to show up anywhere.)
Because like the rest of the world, slashdot can't care about pure research, but instead only what can be put on a shelf and advertised by google now now! now!!!!?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
From the fine article: "With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency..."
So, with a ridiculously bad solar cell, they could increase the efficiency to something that's still ridiculously bad.
Exactly. It was miserably inefficient previously, and now now its 180% of miserable.
If the same techniques could work on the top-end PRODUCTION solar cells, which hover around 20% you could perhaps approach 35%.
But the whole idea of % efficiency is fraught with peril. which is why people usually revert to dollars per watt per square meter or some such.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
its not that we are impatient.. BUT the fact the solar cells that are available today are basically the same as the ones 15 years ago and the new tech is always 5 years off every damn year.. its mainly that we all know that there are reasons we don't see these things and it has to do with making other people more money..
i have zero problem with pure research.. just when it's just wonderful and they try to play it off that it will save the world or help us in the next so many years.. then it never shows up... yea nothing seems to change..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Actually, it does matter, because if you start from a less efficient process and go up, you may not exceed the efficiency of a more efficient process. So the amount you can 'get from a solar panel' may not change at all.
Which is, if you read the article, actually the case here.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Dollars per square meter (or perhaps kilowatt-hour) is the only really relevant measure. Once it's cheaper to make electricity this way it will take off.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Efficiency is not irrelevant. A given installer only has a finite amount of space to make use of, installing panels costs money, running wires costs money, etc. And especially if they're on a heliostat, but even if they're not, you have to build them hardy enough to withstand the weather for decades. The per-panel or per-square-meter overhead is not irrelevant, and thus efficiency is not irrelevant.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
We are working on a fix for that.... it should be ready in about 5 years.
It is unfair to speak in such one dimensional terms. In many cases, there is a direct correlation to cost. Consider, for example, how a more efficient solar cell can reduce the mass (and by extension launch cost) of a satellite. Maybe a few of us have become jaded by the exponential growth in some sectors of high tech. In the real world, however, progress occurs in increments and every little bit is worth celebrating as a step closer to the next breakthrough.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Every 2 months or so someone revolutionizes Solar Cells. Or at least that's what the articles suggest. Now I admit I don't keep to breast with current technologies, but has ANY of them reached production?
BUT the fact the solar cells that are available today are basically the same as the ones 15 years ago
BUT the fact is that you've clearly not paid one iota of attention to the price difference between today's cells versus those of 15 years ago (just so you know, they're about 1/3rd the cost now), nor the chemistry differences between today's cells and those of 15 years ago (go back to 1996 and find me a mass-market CdTe cell, won't you? The largest PV manufacturer in the world is now CdTe)
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
And 90 years later we were finally there...
Solar cells are actually significantly ahead of where they were 15 years ago. There's no huge jump, but there really can't be, as we're nearing the theoretical limit of simple pv cells. More complicated cells can do better, but again the maximum amount better is less than 3x, and that is all the improvement we can ever get.
Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
and you'll see the slow but steady march of progress. That march is reflected in the commercial cells you can buy as well.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Really? And if they improve the efficiency by 100%, I don't need any solar cells at all to get the same power? (100% less!)
Actually, with 80% more efficient solar cells, you could reduce the size only by about 44% to get the same power.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
There are multi-junction solar cells with a decent efficiency. That's teh kind that go on expensive sattelites. The problem is that such cells cost an arm and a leg so it is still cheaper to use the single-junction cells that get a much poorer efficiency. The kind of solar breakthroughs that might make photovoltaic competitive is reductions in the cost of teh manufacturing process. If you can find a cheap way to make the multi junction cells then the price per kWh will come down drastically.
Btw: The price per watt is useless as a metric because most of the time the cells don't give you their maximum power rating. What is interesting is the price per unit of energy averaged over a year. I.e $/kWh.
The cadmium telluride is 0.5 micrometers thin, so there isn't actually that much of it.
That's all good and fine, but an article claiming that solar PV cells are 80% more efficient come up on Slashdot about once a month, each using a different method. Yet the cells we have today are nearly as grossly inefficient as they were 15 years ago. I'm glad price is moving forward, but even if in 15 years time panels are free if I still need to blanket the entire roof with shiny panels that have a high carbon footprint to produce, then really what's the point.
What we need is for these efficient cells to finally come to the market. I would gladly pay 8 times the money for a solar panel if I need only 1 instead of 8, and the associated manufacturing carbon footprint would be reduced as well. Sadly this reality seems as far away as fusion power, perpetually another 5-10 years.
However, while solar isn't a great option in places like Germany
The Germans beg to differ.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
1-4 years to pay off the energy required to manufacture them. After which they are a net benefit to our economies.
You can buy the cells anywhere. 15 years ago you could buy 14% efficient cells. Today you can buy 22% cells. Lab cells are approaching the theoretical limit of 29% for simple PV. That's a 50% improvement already, with another 30% on the table, whjch we will see gradually creep into commercialization over the next 15 years as we have over the last 15 years.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
On the shelves. Commercial efficiencies 15 years ago were about 14-15%. Today, about 22%.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That article talks about energy payback, not $ payback. That is, how long it takes for the panel to produce the energy required to manufacture it. Typically the energy payback time is much shorter than the $ payback time.
Your thinking is too centralized. If the tech gets cheap enough, I think you'll start to see a lot more private homes installing solar panels. Batteries aren't an issue because they'll still be on the grid--solar is primarily supplemental and will be for some time. If the panel owner ends up generating more electricity than he is using during the day, in many (most?) places the electric company pays him for it.
Your brain is not a computer.